Evangelist Luis Palau, who knows and has prayed together with Pope Francis on several occasions, called the new leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics a friend of evangelicals who is respectful of all sides of Christianity.

"I exploded," Palau told oregonlive.com, of his reaction after his son, Kevin Palau, president of the Luis Palau Association, shared the news that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, was elected pope this week. "I just couldn't believe it. In the last election, he was in the running but he told me he felt led by God to remove himself from the race. I said, 'Maybe next time,' and he said, 'I'll be too old.'"

The fiery preacher who some have called the "Latin Billy Graham," said whenever they prayed together, Bergoglio asked him to "lay your hands on me and pray for me, that God will keep me as servant." The new pope is respectful of all sides of Christianity, Palau said, adding the press referred to him as the "evangelical pope" in 2008. Bergoglio, 76, was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936. His father was an Italian immigrant. He's the first pope from South America, and also the first Jesuit pope. Palau was also born in Argentina, and moved to Portland, Ore., in his mid-20s to enroll in a graduate program in Biblical studies.

"I've met him several times, gone to his place, we've talked, we've prayed together you know. He builds bridges to other Christian groups, like evangelical Christians, which is a high percentage in Latin America. He's a friend. He's a real friend," Palau, 78, told kgw.com.

In Buenos Aires, the Rev. Dr. Norberto Saracco, a prominent evangelical leader in Argentina, affirmed that Pope Francis is "known for having very good relationships with evangelicals and with leaders of other faiths, in addition to being a man of prayer and a supporter of the Bible Society," the Rev. Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, secretary general of the Wold Evangelical Alliance, said in statement to congratulate Francis.

The new pope took the name of the most severe critic of the papacy before Martin Luther, and bowed to receive the crowd's blessing.

"He doesn't act superior or above, you know, because of his position and so on," Palau said. "You'd never guess he was a cardinal if he walked in the room, because he makes a point of it. He's not impressed by himself."

Bergoglio is known for his simplicity. In Argentina, he chose not to live in the archbishop's palace and took a simple apartment instead. He also cooked his own meals and used public transport to go to work in lieu of a chauffeured limousine he was entitled to.

When Argentina became the first Latin American country to legalize gay marriage in 2010, Bergoglio opposed it, saying the legislation would "seriously injure the family" and that gay adoption would be "depriving (children) of the human growth that God wanted them given by a father and a mother."

On criticism that Bergoglio failed to act in the mid-1970s to protect the people from military dictators in Argentina, Palau said, "It's, you know, so easy to make statements, why don't they say this or say that. Why don't you go, become a citizen and live there, then try to do it?"

Palau said the new pope is likely to focus on the youth. "His passion for (the) young was in my book, far more visible and that shows you my conversations with him, than even his work with the poor. He really was desperate about the secularization of young people all over the west and all over the world," said Palau, author of numerous books.

Pope Francis is known for his pastoral skills and spirituality. He urged leaders of the Roman Catholic Church Friday never to give in to discouragement, bitterness or pessimism but to keep focused on their mission. "Let us never give in to the pessimism, to that bitterness, that the devil places before us every day. Let us not give into pessimism and discouragement," Reuters quoted the pope as telling the cardinals who chose him.

Francis also told the cardinals Thursday the Church must not become just another charitable group without its divine mission, urging they must stick to the faith's Gospel roots and shun modern temptations.

On Friday afternoon, Francis slipped out of the Vatican to visit a fellow Argentine, 90-year-old Cardinal Jorg Mejia, who had suffered a heart attack. On Thursday morning, the day after his election, he left quietly to pray at a Rome basilica and to pay his bill at a residence where he had been staying before the conclave, according to Reuters.

Earlier in the Sistine Chapel, Francis stopped cardinals who tried to kneel before him.

Extending his "warmest congratulations" to the newly elected Pope, Tunnicliffe affirmed his prayers for the new leader, who will head the Catholic Church "at a time filled with great challenges but also a time of great possibilities..." He said WEA looks forward to "building on some of the good work we have done together in the past, such as the collaboration for the document Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct."

Francis' predecessor Pope Benedict XVI resigned, saying, "Strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me." The inauguration of Pope Francis will be held Tuesday.

VATICAN II seems to have IN EFFECT done that without directly saying so.

Vatican II claims:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ” (Dogmatic Constitution..., 1964, 2.15).

The most incidious form of deception is error mixed with truth and the Jesuits are masters of mixing error with truth and changing the meaning of words . He speaks like a dragon.

Eph 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

As far as I can see, Romulus, "friend of Evangelicals" is a good thing. Some of our dear brothers and sisters in the Faith have tagged it--- in other threads --- as a code for "weak-kneed ecumaniac"; but of such hotheaded talk, the less said, the better.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema (First Dogmatic..., 1870, 2.5, parenthetical item in original).

Here’s what VATICAN II says:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ (Dogmatic Constitution..., 1964, 2.15)

One council says those who don’t recognize the Roman Pontiff as the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy is ANATHEMA, while the later council says They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ even when they DON’T acknowledge the Roman Pontiff.

I don’t call the above mere softening of words. I call it NOT AFFIRMING the previous words.

You cannot reconcile the word ANATHEMA and the words United with Christ. The two are dramatically opposite each other.

Indeed. Trent was addressing people who had been baptized in the Catholic Church. They were formal heretics. The majority of evangelicals are not. Furthermore, even Trent was concerned about the leaders of the Reformation rather than their followers, many of whom were compelled by the laws of their states to adjure their faith. Different time, different place.

As I explained, “anathema” has a specific technical meaning in canon law. The secular dictionary definition isn’t going to give you that. Because it is a penalty under church law, like all such penalties, it doesn’t apply to non- Catholics. That doesn’t change the fact that some of what the reformers taught is heretical. But you can’t argue the fate of non-Catholics in Catholic teaching based on a penalty clause which is no longer in force, and never applied to them in the first place.

It was their doctrines that were denounced. But both men were baptized Catholics and Luther an ordained priest. As for their followers, that would be those who openly professed such doctrines. In Germany and elsewhere, the common people usuallu had no choice as they were required to follow the dictates of their local authorities. This would be less true of the sects, who were persecuted by both Catholics and Lutherans. Freedom of religion —as a concept— was anathema even to the sectarians. They did not believe any man had the right to err about the true doctrine of Christ.

RE: That doesnt change the fact that some of what the reformers taught is heretical.

so, not recognizing the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Church is heretical...

As for heresy, what else is heresy that the reformers taught? Can you cite one example?

I cited one of them already — not recognizing the Pope as the Primate of the church.

RE: But you cant argue the fate of non-Catholics in Catholic teaching based on a penalty clause which is no longer in force, and never applied to them in the first place.

I find this to be quite strange and hard to conceive. Why would anathema merely apply to Luther or Calvin and not to his followers who believe the same “heretical” ( your words ) doctrine they do? These are people who call themselves “Christian” as well.

For instance, there are thousands upon thousand of people in the world who were baptized in the Roman Catholic Church as infants who after growing up, decided, upon reflection and discussions with non-Catholic Christians, that they are convinced that Martin Luther and John Calvin are right.

Surely, these thousands of non-Catholics are anathema according to Vatican I. That is, if the technical meaning is having been Catholic, you now embrace doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church (as per Vatican I ) calls anathema.

Yet, Vatican II calls them separated brothers.

The only convincing explanation for me is Vatican II superceded Vatican I.

RE: As for their followers, that would be those who openly professed such doctrines.

There are MILLIONS of Luther and Calvin followers now who OPENLY profess their doctrines.

Luis Palau being one of them ( ask him for instance if he believes in Sola Scriptura, I am 100% certain he would say YES. Why do I say that? I heard him say so before ).

Ask Palau directly if he believes that Pope Francis should be THE ( not ‘a’ ) representative of Christ on earth. If he were honest to his Evangelical Heritage, he would say Francis is ‘a’ representative, but not ‘the’ representative of Christ.

Vatican I condemns that belief, but Vatican II does not.

To be consistent with your statement ‘As for their followers, that would be those who openly professed such doctrines.’, men like Palau would be under Vatican I anathema ( bit not Vatican II ).

Not really. Not many even know what the teachings of Luther and Calvin were. And the consequence of their actions was a Christianity divided literally into warring camps, the devastation of Europe, and the discrediting of Christianity in such a way as to open the door to the new paganism that threatens us now.

First of all the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformers condemned at Trent are still regarded as errors. Luthers doctrines less so than Calvins. Calvins less than Zwinglis and the Anabaptists more than any of the major reformers. But consider how negative the Reformers doctrines were: they rejected the authority of the pope and the council and to a lesser degree that of the Church Fathers. They rejected the sacraments as Catholics --and the Orthodox --understood them. Positively, they were Augustinians who rejected Scholasticism. They were iconoclasts. Now of course, there were differences. Luther believed in the Real Presence; Calvin did also, although in a very attenuated way, but his colleagues in Geneva and later followers tended to the same views as Zwingli.

None believed in a special priesthood, bit instead, they believed in a ministerial class composed of men knowledgeable in the Bible. They rejected Latin as a liturgical language, and used the Vernacular, but trusted their ministers to know the Scriptural language , Greek and Hebrew. Hence the authority of the vernacular Bibles. Today, of course, the Vernacular Bible is accepted as authentic even by those who read not a word of the original languages. No longer is the priest the bridge between God and believer, but the translator and interpreter.

OK, given all of the above, why then are non-catholic Christians considered “united with Christ” by Vatican II?

If the purpose of the Roman catholic church is to protect against error, then anathema of Vatican I should apply to every Lutheran, Presbyterian and yes, Protestants and Evangelicals out there ( Luis Palau included since he was born Roman Catholic ).

United by what we share in common. With the Orthodox churches we theologically have the most in common; then such bodies as the Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans; then the Reformed churches. Let us say the confessional churches, which might include the Methodists. Then such bodies as the members of the Southern Baptist Convention, which might not recite the Apostles Creed, but accepts most of its tenants. Then Pentacostals of every stripe. Then liberal Protestant bodies of every denomination. With evangelicals of ever kind there is a great overlap, but most in the notion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God., which faith is expressed in the Nicene Creed in the term consubtantial, which is no more than a one-word, philosophical expression of that dogma.

RE: RE: Then such bodies as the members of the Southern Baptist Convention, which might not recite the Apostles Creed, but accepts most of its tenants.

I have news for you. Some Southern Baptist churches DO recite the Apostle’s Creed. And even when in their worship services, some don’t, they ACCEPT ALL OF IT. I don’t understand where the use of the words “most of it” comes from.

By the word “most”, c an you clarify which one of the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed ( and even the Nicene Creed ) they do not accept?

I should know, I’ve been to many of their worship services and spoken to many of their pastors.

I’ve even had the chance to speak to one of their ( now deceased ) leaders, Rev. Adrian Rogers.

There is only one tenet that they might disagree with with the Roman Catholic Church — the word “catholic”.

Roman Catholics understand it as THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH with the Pope at the head.

The non-Catholics understand it to mean the universal church (the body of Christ) that will exist from the time it was founded until Jesus returns. Members of this church are all who have by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ, believed in Him and accepted Him as Lord and Savior REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic church or not.

But going back to the original discussion...

Vatican I states thusly:

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

You are saying that Roman Catholics can be united with those who are anathema by virtue of what you share in common?

I find this to be most strange. How can you be united and at the same time anathema?

The heretic Arius shared many tenets of the Christian faith with the Orthodox Christians at that time, EXCEPT for his denial of the deity of Christ. He was ANATHEMA and condemned as a heretic. There was no talk of being united by what was shared in common.

It is Catholic doctrine that the Church is the baptized. What Trent condemns is essentially novelties in doctrine which divide the Church. That is what heresies are. Now as far as the Apostle Creed is concerned, the problem is how much authority is placed in the creed, and of course in the interpretation of its articles. The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Baptists all claim to be the Catholic Church, that the Church of Rome apostatized and therefore they do not owe it obedience. The Council of Trent said, no, YOU who say this are the apostates. Religious freedom in the modern sense, which has it that NO ONE has to the right to say how a true Christian is to behave, was a doctrine held by no one. Still ist, by orthodox Christians of every persuasion. It amounts to nothing more than polytheism in a new guise. Doesnt bother me to hear someone called my faith a cult. At least they have definite ideas and believe in the law of non-contradiction.

So, why are those who are not baptized in the Roman Catholic Church considered “united with Christ” by Vatican II?

RE: What Trent condemns is essentially novelties in doctrine which divide the Church.

OK, not recognizing the Pope as Primate is a novelty according to Trent right? Then why are those who believe in this “novelty” now considered “United with Christ” by Vatican II?

Makes no sense.

RE: The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Baptists all claim to be the Catholic Church,

Correction, the The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Baptists all claim to be MEMBERS of the Catholic ( as in Universal ) church. They recognize each other as members as well and include ALL who by grace through faith in Christ ( regardless of which denomination they belong to ) as members of the catholic church.

The question they will ask of ANY PERSON ( regardless of denomination ) is this -— DO YOU CONFESS JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOR ? If the answer is “yes”, then they are recongized to be part of the catholic church.

If you don’t believe me, ask any pastor of any of these denominations.

RE: The Council of Trent said, no, YOU who say this are the apostates

Which of course begs the question -— IN WHAT SENSE ARE THEY UNITED WITH CHRIST according to Vatican II?

An apostate cannot be united with Christ can he?

So, You can’t have both Vatican II and Trent or Vatican I simultaneously be correct on this issue. So, which one prevails?

A council deals with specifics. Trent was dealing with the claims of the Reformers that they taught the true Gospel. That the Church of Rome did not. Trent rejected their claims. That Luthers doctrines, or principles, were novelties unknown to Christians until now. The Reformers, on their own authority, on their own interpretation of Scripture, claimed to teach who ought to have been taught all along, citing Scripture as their guide. Both sides accepted that public revelation had closed with the deaths of the Apostles, but the Reformers would accept nothing except what was contained in the writingsof the Apostles. The Council disputed this, on the grounds that those scriptures had authorized the Church to say what was Gospel and what not. In the end, of course, the decision is in the hands of God. At the time, however, both sides were willing to use force against the other. Each side declared the another anathema. Because religion was so much part of the established order of society that meant, intimately, war. Vatican II basically said, no, war is not appropriate; persuasion only, which of course is yet a kind of force. Charity must prevail. Neither side ought to resort to force to compel unity. But what was false is still false. But Christians should approach their differences as estranged brothers ought to, honestly and with charity. In a way, like parties in a national parliament. Divided, often deeply divided, but countrymen still. Civil war, above all, to be avoided.

RE: Trent was dealing with the claims of the Reformers that they taught the true Gospel. That the Church of Rome did not. Trent rejected their claims.

Sure, but remember this, WE HAVE SPIRITUAL DESCENDANTS OF THE REFORMERS EXISTING TODAY, BY THE MILLIONS I MIGHT ADD.

I think the question has to be asked — if Trent considers these people anathema, why does Vatican II consider those who share their beliefs “United with Christ”?

RE: Vatican II basically said, no, war is not appropriate; persuasion only, which of course is yet a kind of force. Charity must prevail. Neither side ought to resort to force to compel unity. But what was false is still false.

We are NOT talking about war here. we are talking THEOLOGICAL differences. So, kindly dispose of that idea.

These are theological differences that affect SPIRITUAL CONCERNS and that is where we should focus the discussion on.

It is clear that Vatican I and Trent still ex-communicates
the reformers and their followers. It is NOT CLEAR if Vatican II does. By using the words they are “united with Christ”, it looks like Vatican II is softening the words of the previous councils.

So your explanation does not solve the problem. If as you say, false is still false, and not accepting the Pope’s primacy is anathema, you don’t use the words — “United with Christ” to refer to those people who hold to what is false.

You might call them friends, but you don’t call them “united with Christ”.

To give you an example — I can be a friend of a self-professed supporter of abortion and gay marriage and even have a beer with him or even play ball with him, but I would not consider him “united with Christ”. He is MOST DEFINITELY NOT “united with Chris”t in any sense of the word by his support of murder of children and the destruction of marriage.

So, If Logic is to prevail, and the force of Trent and Vatican I is to be taken seriously, the millions of people who hold to the same beliefs as Luther or Calvin should NOT be “united with Christ” based on their beliefs. They should still be ex-communicated.

You cannot simultaneously hold to beliefs that are anathema and still be considered “united with Christ” ( or does Vatican II now says that you can?).

Whatever it is, I don’t see how the words of Vatican II and Vatican I can be reconciled.

I am talking about history, about human beings acting in historyTrent took place within history and even as its was adjourning war was breaking in France between the Catholics and Huguenots, Elizabeths government was establishing its control over the Catholics in England, a revolution was breaking out in the Netherlands against Spanish rule no little by religious differences. All of this the consequence of the Reformer split with Rome. You can talk about spiritual differences, but that was not the reality of the Reformation. It was made possible by political leaders and because they chose sides in this schism created by the Reformation, war—bloody war— ensued. All of this could have been avoided if charity had prevailed. It did not. Te true Christians on each side were affected. United in Christ , they may have been, but not in the Church.

RE: I am talking about history, about human beings acting in historyTrent took place within history and even as its was adjourning war was breaking in France between the Catholics and Huguenots

And I am also referring to history. Let’s ignore the war for the meantime. The question remains -— are the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I only for those whose citizens are at war? Or are they about SPIRITUAL differences?

But let’s set aside France and the Huguenots for the moment... here’s a direct question for you...

Based on YOUR UNDERSTANDING...is a professed Christian who does not acknowledge the Pope as Primate of the Christian church TODAY still under the Vatican I anathema or not?

A Catholic, yes. but anyone else is not under the popes jurisdiction. Of course, any assertion to the contrary is invalid on the face of it, but the pope has no secular power to compel obedience. Even his power to compel Catholics is limited.

You are using a term as it it meant throwing thunderbolts from on high. The Council of Trent did what it did but it was in the midst of a civil war in the Church, against heretics who had the power to do great harm. Vatican I did what it did because the papacy was under assault from the secular powers of Europe and those even in the Church who wishes to destroy its power and influence. The threat to Church today does not come from the likes of Palau but from the secularists who are enemies of Christ, and the modernists within the Church.

Let me for clarification’s sake summarize what I’ve learned from you so far ( feel free to tell me what I’ve missed ):

1) I take it from your response that the answer is NO. Luis Palau ( despite his not recognizing the Pope as primate of the church ) is NOT under the Trent/Vatican I anathema. The ‘anyone’ in their , ‘if anyone says’ clause refer to specific people in HISTORY PAST, not to non-catholic Christians today.

2) The anathema of Vatican I and Trent refers only to those who threaten to make war on the Vatican and NOT to those Reformers and other non-catholic Christians who do not recognize the Pope’s authority over them but are not at war ( militarily ) with the Vatican.

3) Vatican II therefore recognizes the likes of Luis Palau and even the spiritual descendants of the reformers as “united in Christ” together with devout Roman Catholics.

I am saying that the pronouncement of the Council were in response to the teachings of the Reformers and a condemnation of them. Trent was a response to an existential threat. It took Rome more than a decade to wake up to what was going on, that The Empire was in schism. Rome had been distracted by their quarrel with the Emperor which led to the sack of Rome by his troops, with the Turkish threat, with the demands of Henry VIII and Francis etc. Olkiticsa in short. Then there started a move to negotiate with the Lutheran princes, and moves for new council. When it finally happened, it was without the Reformers, that is to say, the Lutherans etc. The Catholics reformers set the agenda, so Trent adopted the reform agenda of the Catholic reformers. Less a counter-Reformation,than an :alternative-reformation. The rivalry with todays evangelicals, to the extent that they do not use the rhetoric of the Protestant Reformers, is of a different kind.

RE: I am saying that the pronouncement of the Council were in response to the teachings of the Reformers and a condemnation of them.

I don’t think you answered my question. If Trent’s pronouncement were a condemnation of the Reformer’s teachings (you just said it above), then surely the same condemnation applies to their present followers who teach similar things. But then, Vatican II calls them “United with Christ”, so which is it?

So, which is being condemned and why the condemnation? Is it because of the historical situation at that time which no longer exists today, or is it because of the TEACHINGS THEMSELVES?

My reading of Trent and Vatican I tells me that it is the TEACHINGS that are condemned. Which is, EVEN IF there is no existential threat like an Empire in schism today, the condemnation of the TEACHING still remains.

But you seem to be saying no... ( or maybe I read you wrongly).

RE: The rivalry with todays evangelicals, to the extent that they do not use the rhetoric of the Protestant Reformers, is of a different kind.

OK, let’s say that today’s reformers do not use the heated rhetoric of the 16th century, are their beliefs ( e.g. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, non-recognition of the Pope as Primate ) still under Trent’s condemnation or not? And note I focus on the word — BELIEF, not the rhetoric of the 16th century, or the existential threat to the Empire.

RE: The rivalry with todays evangelicals, to the extent that they do not use the rhetoric of the Protestant Reformers, is of a different kind <-— Note the last two words.

What is this “different kind” you are referring to? Could you please clarify? How is the belief of Reformed Christians today any different from the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers?

We must of course face the reality of the differences in doctrine. Luther and Calvin et al. developed theologies that were different from those of the Church and were contradicted—and condemned—m by the Council of Trent. But no evangelical today does not come to these doctrines the same way that the Reformers did. The Luther of 1521 was not yet a Lutheran. So long as he was alive, he kept developing his own thought and it did not become unchangeable until he died. It is said that on his deathbed, he affirmed his teachings. But as soon as he was dead, they were placed in the hands of other man. Ditto the works of Calvin, and by the end of the century we have Calvinism and we have Lutheranism, which are based on their teachings but not exactly the same. Today, Evangelicals may honor to their principles, but they are no more Lutherans or Calvinists than Luther and Calvin were Augustinians. They are embedded in a tradition, and what separates Catholics and Evangelicals is that each follows a tradition, and so particular principles matter less than the tradition as a whole. Of course the reform or evangelical tradition is far more diverse than the Catholic tradition. The development of denominationalism in the 19th century in America was an effort to arrive at certain common principles, which are the ones you list, but they are less important than the impulse created by revivalism.

RE: Today, Evangelicals may honor to their principles, but they are no more Lutherans or Calvinists than Luther and Calvin were Augustinian.

Excuse me? Have you spoken to devout Calvinists and Lutherans today? (I’m not talking about the wishy washy ones of the PCUSA or ELCA, I’m talking about the millions of Lutherans and Calivinists who REALLY believe the same doctrine Luther and Calivn espoused ).

The thesis that Luther nailed in the Church at Wittenberg which were debated and then condemened by Trent are still in existence today.

Sola Scriptura ( which in effect means the denial of ex-cathedra of the Pope ), Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Glora ... all of these are ALIVE AND WELL TODAY.

Just listen to a Christian radio that broadcasts the teachings of people like John MaCarthur, RC Sproul, etc. and you’ll hear them espoused time and again.

I have to disagree with you here - EVANGELICALS ( the devout ones ) believe in the above SOLA’s that Luther and Calvin espoused.

Also, regarding this -— “he kept developing his own thought and it did not become unchangeable until he died” — Martin Luther did not think of himself as an innovator, he and his colleagues considered themselves REFORMERS, people who wanted the catholic ( as in universal ) church to go back to original Biblical Principles.

You can talk to a devout reformed Christian today and they will tell you that as well.

But having said that, I don’t think you’ve answered my question, in other words, your answers are unclear after so many exchanges.

Are the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I directed towards the DOCTRINES of the reformers or not? If so, the “anyone” in the pronouncement by logic, should apply to those who believe and teach these same doctrines today.

One of them being the non-recognition of the Pope as the Primate of all Christianity.

Therefore, I find it difficult if not impossible to reconcile Vatican II and Vatican I.

However Luther thought of himself, he was an innovator. It was, to a degree, based on his study of the Church fathers, especially St. Austin. Bur what you list are things he postulated, not things which logically progress from the teachings of any other Church fathers. Dr. Luther is the authority for these doctrines. He felt justified in doing this because he saw the developments for the previous thousand years as innovations or at least imperfect formulation of the Gospel as found in Scripture, but this was simply his opinion. To save his theory, he had to reject all existing authority: his rule, the the papacy, the councils and even where they did not suit him the Church fathers. Once he had the protection of his prince and, later, the other German princes, he was free to develop his doctrines, so that in the end, he had a coherent theology that we call Lutheranism. However, this is not what Lutheranism is today. Even as he was warm in the grave, Melanchthon--=his great collaborator-- was moving it toward the Calvinist modification. Between him and todays evangelicals lie 450 years of history.

Your contention is that the language of the two Vatican Councils cannot be reconciled, but this is I think to take these words out of context. In a way, the Church acts as Luther did as an individual, which is to save its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in new language. The doctrine of infallibility was a strong assertion of a historic claim of authority by the Bishop of Rome. In a way, this is instrumental. HOW if not by vesting final authority in a single person, is the earthly purity of doctrine to be sustains; how are the many diverse members of the Body of Christ to be kept together and acting in consort? To put it another way, who are the human agents of the Holy Spirit? Obviously, Peter did not simply take the place of Our Lord. No one could. The fact is that Our Lord did not assign him as a kind of Caliph, which was the way that some of the Medieval popes sometimes seemed to act, but as Pope St. Gregory put it, Servant of the Servants of God., In effect,like Moses at the head of the people of Israel. But more so. Moses had never seen His Lord in the flesh. Which is why Paul made a points of connecting with Peter in Jerusalem. Our Lord has ordained Peter to serve a role he never gave to any one else.

That did not, of course, make Peter the first pope, The popes are his successors, and here is the difficulty, one can or cannot accept his successors as bishops of Rome as having the same sort of authority as Peter, as being like him the Keeper of the Keys. One way to get around this, of course, and that is to downplay Peters role. That requires a certain reading of the text, which done mainly by elevating others, such as Paul/James. By treating Peter as no more than the representative Christian rarher than as the representative/deputy of Christ. Another way is to deny the existence of a monarchial bishop of Rome, In any case, Luther et al, simply rejected the authority of Rome by interposing his own authority as a scholar,

RE: Martin Luther: He felt justified in doing this because he saw the developments for the previous thousand years as innovations or at least imperfect formulation of the Gospel as found in Scripture,

OK, I agree with the above statement. But you seem to be ignoring my question — If Luther’s above study and his above belief was considered anathema to Trent and then re-iterated by Vatican I, why is the anathema not re-iterated in Vatican II for those who share his beliefs today?

Your citing history never answered that question. It only BEGGED the question.

RE: In a way, the Church acts as Luther did as an individual, which is to save its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in new language.

Well, if that is the case, then I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to “save” its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in THE SAME LANGUAGE.

Hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics are even as we speak, LEAVING the church and joining other denominations, In Latin America alone, the Pentecostal movement is growing by leaps and bounds and many of these joiners were born Roman Catholic.

If as you say, The doctrine of Papal infallibility was a strong assertion of a historic claim of authority by the Bishop of Rome, I would expect it to be re-iterated in Vatican II, not weakened and calling those who leave the church to join another denomination “United with Christ”.

So, let’s go back to my original question, which was not answered at all. Historical issues you cited did nothing to answer my questions, which are these:

1) The anyone in their , if anyone says clause refer to specific people in HISTORY PAST, not to non-catholic Christians today.

Yes or No?

2) The anathema of Vatican I and Trent refers only to those who threaten to make war on the Vatican (”Existential threat” <— your words) and NOT to those Reformers and other non-catholic Christians who simply do not recognize the Popes authority over them but are not at war ( militarily ) with the Vatican.

Yes or No?

3) Vatican II therefore recognizes the likes of Luis Palau and even the spiritual descendants of the reformers as united in Christ together with devout Roman Catholics.

Should the language of the previous Councils have been re-iterated? That forgets the purpose for which was called, which was to complete to work begun by Vatican I, which was in effect chased out of town when the Italians occupied Rome. It was not to be a doctrinal council, as Trent was. However, it can be asserted, as Benedict has implied, that a party within the Church, treated the Council as not a renewal but as an abrupt departure from the past.

In truth, there was nothing new in this.Since the 18th century, the liberal party, the party of the Enlightenment, has been struggling to gain ascendency in the Church, not only in the Church but in Protestantism. The events of 1789 -1815 slowed its progress in the Church , because so many became unbelievers . Anti-clericalism dominated the political life of so many Catholic, Countries. In the Protestant countries, with their weaker clerical class matters took a different course. The sects multiplied and state churches declined. John Wesleys methodism set the paradign for what happened in North America and the UK. Calvinism was abandoned either for liberalism or form arminianism, or people just stopped talking about theology at all. Wesley himself just straddled the fence, sometimes sounding Calvinist and something Arminian. The evangelical party in the Church of England did the same. Moral theology dominated the scene. The language of the Reformers was repeated but largely emptied of its content. Anti-Catholicism joined all parties.

The Church was embattled everywhere. Freemasonry was the choice the elites in Catholic countries. It was strong in the English-speaking countries as well, not anti-Christian. but still anti-Catholic. The government of Mexico has been anti-Catholics or at best tolerant since the 1820s, when the masonic US Ambassador, Joel Poinsett, was a major influence. Vatican I came about because Pius IX wanted take a stand against modernity,and you may recall how his syllabus of errors was received in this country. The same as humanae vitae in 1968, except that in the 1860s, the American Church was still united behind the pope, if only because of the need to confront the strong anti-Catholicism of the times.

I submit, therefore, that the want of the language of previous councils was not the cause of the disaster. Rather it was the revolt against Roman authority under the banner of the Spirit of Vatican II, an insurgency that had already begun in the 50s.

As for the falling away, it was owing to a loss of faith by the lower clergy and the nuns, who are the officer corps. of the Church. In many respects it is much like the Reformation of the 16th Century, which was also led by clergymen, at least in the beginning. Their doctrine is at least Christian, which is why so many Catholics have retreated to the sects from a body whose leadership evidenced so little faith in the doctrine of Trent. But far more have abandoned any meaningful form of Christianity. The opposite of love is, after all, not hate, but indifference.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.